Army’s allegiance unclear in conflict

Monday

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:01 AMJan 31, 2011 at 11:23 AM

McCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON — As unprecedented protests led to national chaos in Egypt, the Egyptian army has taken no decisive action to end the conflict, leaving experts wondering which of four possibilities are governing the army’s actions.

Does the military sympathize with the protesters, or is it just waiting for the right moment to intervene? Is it divided internally about the proper response, or does it see itself not as the protector of President Hosni Mubarak’s regime but of the Egyptian state?

“There doesn’t seem to be a single clear line that the military is taking,” said Joel Beinin, a professor of Middle East history at Stanford University. “They haven’t been ordered to do anything one way or the other. We are still in a freeze moment. Everyone understands the Mubarak regime has lost credibility. My guess is the army is deciding what it will do next.”

As protests continued yesterday, the army remained the bulwark of state legitimacy even as it coexisted peacefully with protesters who spray-painted anti-Mubarak slogans on tanks and hoisted army officers on their shoulders.

The Egyptian air force sent F-16 fighter jets over the protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, but some soldiers appeared to have joined the protesters. Throughout Cairo, men armed with kitchen knives and sticks captured looters, then handed them to the army, confident the military would take care of the problem. The mere sight of soldiers on the streets elicited applause.

The army’s position reflects the military’s long status as the face of Egyptian nationalism. The army’s seeming ambivalence toward the protests also might be an indication that its leaders understand keeping its revered status is more important than preserving the Mubarak government.

“If you have to choose between defending the commander in chief or defending the role of the military in the state, who do you choose?” said Jon Alterman, the Middle East program director for the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The military’s conflict of interest in the present situation is clear. Top government officials are, for the most part, generals and former generals. Those who lead the army earned those jobs by either tacitly or overtly supporting the Mubarak regime.

Every president since Egypt won its independence from the British in 1952 has been from the military. Mubarak was the air force chief of staff during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Mubarak’s newly selected vice president, Omar Suleiman, is an army general and head of Mubarak’s intelligence agency, and the new prime minister, Ahmad Shafiq, is the former commander of the Egyptian air force.

The Mubarak regime has called on the army before to pacify angry Egyptians, most recently to quell riots over a shortage of bread in 2008.

Yet the Egyptian army is a conscript force, which means that for many rank-and-file soldiers the protesters are family members whose quality of life has deteriorated under the Mubarak regime. That makes it difficult for generals to order their mid-rank soldiers to fire on the crowds, Beinin said.

Anthony Cordesman, another national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, agreed.

“This is not a professional army. It is a professionally led conscript force. It is a force with ties outside the military,” he said.

Joining the Egyptian army is one of the few jobs that allow Egyptian men to earn enough to get married and start their own families.

“My impression is that these are not politically polarized people,” Cordesman said.

Egypt receives weapons and training from the United States, and the United States is seen as largely responsible for the military’s strength today.

U.S. officials told McClatchy they believe the Egyptian army’s response is a reflection of its professionalism, saying that by allowing people to protest and not reacting violently, it is doing exactly the right thing.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.